Transforming Infrastructure in East Sussex (TIES) Engagement with Black and Minority Ethnic Communities 1 Contents Executive summary 3 Introduction 6 The Local Picture 7 Methodology 8 Results: Mapping of local BME organisations 9 Questionnaires targeted at individual members of BME communities 11 Survey targeted at voluntary organisations providing services to communities in East Sussex 14 Questionnaires targeted at a sample of locally-based BME community groups as identified in the mapping exercise 17 Forum events 20 Forum feedback- barriers and strategies 21 Analysis 25 Recommendations 26 Emerging themes 33 Conclusion 34 Appendix 1 Questionnaire targeted at individual members of BME communities 35 Appendix 2 Draft research report which informed the Forums 42 2 Executive Summary Three countywide specialist Black and Minority Ethnic (BME) organisations were tasked with working in partnership to research the needs of individuals from BME communities and how those needs could be better met by mainstream voluntary sector service providers. Whilst the 2011 Census data has provided some headline figures concerning ethnicity, the partnership were keen to hear directly from members of BME communities for various reasons including: 1) it is not necessarily the areas with the greatest numbers of BME people where the need for more accessible services is greatest and 2) some BME communities may have been undercounted for various reasons, such as a reluctance to engage with “officialdom” as with many Gypsies and Travellers. Between them, the three partners – Diversity Resource International (DRI), Friends, Families and Travellers (FFT), and SCDA Sompriti - span a wide variety of individuals and groups. Together, they have collated and distilled a robust report, drawing on a range of methodologies – from online and face-to-face questionnaires to facilitated discussions in the three forum events – in Eastbourne, Hastings and Newhaven - that they led. All three organisations have invested a great deal of time and thought into this process and look forward to seeing the recommendations put into practice. Information was gathered in two phases. The first involved sending out three sets of questionnaires to: a) local BME organisations, b) individual members from BME communities, including Gypsies and Travellers and c) to organisations providing services to communities in East Sussex. The replies were then analysed and used as a springboard for phase 2, three forum events targeted at individual members from BME communities, including Gypsies and Travellers and also mainstream voluntary organisations providing services to communities in East Sussex. The themes that came from the questionnaires given to individuals from BME (including Gypsy and Traveller) communities revolved around difficulties that individuals had accessing voluntary and community groups, a lack of awareness of these groups, where to find them, or how to go about finding them were paramount. Of suggested solutions, these included having a Traveller support worker; information in community languages and interpreting and more easy to read leaflets. The need for better access to interpretation and translation services, working with bilingual advocates and producing promotional material with a specialist agency cropped up repeatedly in the questionnaires from organisations working with BME communities. A key underlying theme is the mismatch in perception between voluntary/community groups and the BME individuals who took part in this survey. The feedback from mainstream voluntary organisations suggests that the reason that few BME people access services is that they do not know about them. However, this in fact does not seem to be the overriding evidence from the research findings. The comments from BME individuals and community groups suggest that whereas many of them are aware of the various services provided, their reluctance to access the services would indicate that the services are not adapted to their needs. Thus many BME individuals failed to use the services or have negative experiences of them. 3 There is a discrepancy in the rate at which BME individuals are accessing various community and voluntary groups. For instance Citizens Advice Bureaux and information points such as libraries appear to be used relatively frequently. It may be that this variation is to some extent needs related, but it should also be recognised that some organisations are demonstrating good practice in making themselves widely accessible. Individuals access to services is affected by a variety of factors, including language issues, lack of knowledge about services and also by unfriendly or inappropriate attitudes towards BME residents. Ethnic monitoring is seen to be taking place. However, there is little evidence of “bending mainstream services” to meet the needs of BME residents as a consequence of such monitoring. The three forums run in Hastings, Newhaven and Eastbourne, produced a range of constructive suggestions on how statutory, voluntary and BME groups can work together to overcome existing barriers, build on current best practice and develop new strategies. Here are the key themes from these forums: From the outset, involving and/or employing members from BME communities when designing or adapting services or training. This would build the confidence of all parties and develop community “champions” or “super users”. To quote one participant: “If BME individuals become regular service users, they can reach out to others based on trust, positive attitude, happy to help…” Need to be proactive in reaching out to communities in different ways, to suit different audiences. In reaching out it is necessary to recognise that the umbrella term “BME communities” covers a very wide range of experiences and aspirations. Outreach might include organising community events around a specific theme, such as “adult social care”; outreach advocacy; activities that might be hobby based, such as gardening, cooking. Use current best practice as inspiration. Clear communication, to ensure that English is jargon free, acronyms are explained and that information about interpreters and bilingual advocacy is available across the County in different formats (online, printed) and in different languages. Allied to clear communication is the need to include simple explanations of key concepts such as “social services”, “respite care” or “depression” - concepts which might not have a direct equivalent in other communities. Underpinning the need for clear communication and reaching out to different communities, was the recognition of the invaluable role of local community interpreters. A number of participants voiced how important it was to have consistent information about the availability of interpreters, making use of interpreters’ existing contacts and how helpful they were in creating better understanding amongst service providers. Linked to this was the feeling that there needs to be better provision of effective English classes, ensuring that from the start, students have a say in what kind of English they need to learn and that classes should be more practical and flexible. I.e. organise a trip on public transport and learn about the phrases you need as you go. 4 Intrinsic to all the work behind this report – the mapping, the questionnaires and the forums – is the value that comes from collaboration and the pooling of resources. Sharing expertise was a common theme and participants expressed a desire to develop resources such as central directory/one stop shop for information about relevant voluntary organisations and service providers, with contact details in different languages. Providing this online would be cost-effective, as long as it was backed up with translated printed material in places like libraries. The three organisations, Friends, Families and Travellers, SCDA Sompriti and Diversity Resource International, feel that the connections made during the course of this project provide an ideal springboard for change. They are keen that others build on the ideas and interest from the forums, to enable voluntary, statutory and BME organisations to make a real difference to the lives of everyone living in East Sussex. In that sense, this report is just a starting block for transforming infrastructure in East Sussex and we hope it is a positive one. 5 Introduction In 2011 3VA, East Sussex, as a lead partner, applied for funding from the Transforming Local Infrastructure fund, funded by the Cabinet Office and delivered by the Big Lottery Fund. 3VA is a Council for Voluntary Service (CVS) formed by the merger of two CVS’ in 2009. The organisation provides services and support for civil society organisations, providing the infrastructure for them to flourish. The Transforming Local Infrastructure funding provided short-term funding focussed on supporting civil society organisations during a period of change. The aim of the Transforming Infrastructure in East Sussex (TIES) project was to offer transformation through integrated support to civil society organisations in East Sussex, to provide a single place for representation, development, volunteering and business support. It was recognised that, despite there being over 50 Black and Minority Ethnic (BME) Civil Society organisations within East Sussex, there was significantly lower take up of infrastructure support by these agencies. Therefore it was proposed that three countywide specialist BME organisations would work in partnership to assist with: